The Problem with the Cultural Left: A Focus on Form Instead of Content

From a conversation on the web:

Anonymous commenter: Some of the Left has gone from fighting for real, important issues to fighting for Political Correctness and other absurdities. That’s not all the Left, just the most vocal and strident. I am what people would consider a Leftist (even though my worldview is Indigenous), and I couldn’t care less what someone says. I care about what someone does.

Even AIM (the American Indian Movement) has gone from fighting for tribal sovereignty and against the destruction of tribal lands by industries and corporations, which is still going on, to fighting against Indian mascots! Many people are fixated on words and disregarding actual facts, probably because screaming about words is easier than facing the monster of destruction this global civilization has become.

What you call the Cultural Left is more interested in form than in content…it is more interested in style than substance.

To which I reply:

Getting all upset about someone saying some word that everyone says anyway is ridiculous.

Also the Cultural Left seems to me to have become prudish, Puritanical, Victorian and even sex-hating. They are also uptight, priggish party-poopers. They’re the no-fun crowd, people who see a party and rush in and dump turds in the punch bowl.

These types used to be rightwingers or conservatives, and in this sense the Cultural Left are actually quite conservative or even reactionary and backwards.

Let’s focus on real issues, not some BS about what someone said, especially when they didn’t even say anything bad anyway.

Let’s focus on real job discrimination and especially housing discrimination against Blacks.

Let’s focus on abortion rights being taken away from women.

Let’s focus on ending employment discrimination against gays.

Let’s focus on getting rid of all discrimination against transsexuals.

You know, the real stuff, not the bullshit.

Hey Feminists: Men Don’t Actually Hate Women

It is a feminist article of faith that all or most all men hate women. This statement is repeated endlessly and has been stated over and over by all of their biggest heroes and scholars. On feminist sites, the notion that most all men hate women is repeated ad nauseum on a daily basis.

I always found this view odd because I know men pretty well. And over six decades, I have not commonly met men who objectively hate women.

On the other hand, I have met many sexist females who think that men are quite inferior to women. In fact, this is exactly what almost all feminists believe. Feminism is simply female sexism against men. They’re female chauvinist pigs, they’ve been this way from the start, and they’re this way to this very day. I don’t think they’ll ever change because the very notion of feminism is predicated on notions like all men hating women and men being quite inferior to women.

If we men really hated women, you would hear it all the time. I would have been hearing it my whole life. I know this because men don’t hide things like this. If men hate hate something or someone or some group, they just come right out and say it. Men are not embarrassed or ashamed to admit that they hate this or that person(s) or thing(s).

In fact, hating is a very masculine behavior and it is quite encouraged in male society, provided you hate the right things. Men who are incapable of hate are regarded as wimps and pussies who will not stand up and fight for themselves. Cowards, in other words. We think they are pathetic.

Most men absolutely do not hate women. I should know. I’m a man. Now whether we treat them as we should is another matter.

Of course, there are men who hate women, and I have met some of them. It’s not cool in male society to say you hate women. People will call you gay if you do that. In other words, straight men are supposed to love women. If you hate them instead, this means you must be homosexual.

What you do hear is men saying they are done with women, they are over them, women are too much trouble, etc. But that’s not hate. And most of them are not serious because you meet the same guy later on and he’s dating or he’s got a girlfriend or wife. And many women say the same thing about men. You often hear this from members of both sexes after the age of 40. You don’t hear it much before that.

What many men are though is sexist. Sexism is not hate. It’s completely different.

It’s this idea that women are a somewhat inferior form of human. They’re not really on our level. Sure, you love them, but they’re just not on the same level as we are. Sort of like how we feel about kids and our pets. Your cat and your young child are in a sense below you, right? They’re just not on the same level. And in a lot of ways, they your cat and your kid are inferior, at least at the moment. But that’s not hate.

All of these feminist women who insist that men hate women are completely out of their minds. It’s been a mass delusion of feminists ever since day one that men hate women. Feminists want to believe this. They want to believe that we hate them because it’s necessary for their crazy, victim-addicted point of view. It’s the biggest lie of them all.

Another big fat lie is Patriarchy. Yes, men have lorded it over women and kept them down for thousands of years, and even for most of American history. But that’s lifting now. Feminism has succeeded in more or less dismantling patriarchy in the US, and they have instead assembled a Matriarchy in its place which of course oppresses men.

There are still some of the remains of the fortress of Patriarchy left, but a lot of the fortifications have been destroyed by the feminists, to their credit. Get off the paranoid “Patriarchy is out to get you” trip, women! It’s crazy nonsense.

These are just two of the insane lies that feminism peddles. Go study feminism sometime. It’s constructed on a house of cards made up of mostly flat out, straight up lies. Feminists are hostile to science, truth, and facts because it doesn’t back up their stupid lies that they have constructed their entire ideology on.

Say no to feminism. If you’re a woman and you love men, it’s time to stand up and say no to feminism.

Letter to a Boy, 2019

Growing up a boy in the 21st century is not easy. The unhinged ideology of feminism has stifled many aspects about the very nature and essence of being a boy, and it is not right.

– You will be told nothing good about your gender because apparently there is no pride in being a boy.

– In society you will experience a system that is tilted against you by branding you a young offender just for typical male behavior.

– Your female peers will be encouraged in every stage of their educational journey and you will not.

– You will be blamed for the oppression of women by just being alive because it contributes to the «upholding of the patriarchy».

– You will be told in university that you’re a rapist in waiting, and you will be forced to attend consent classes.

– Your natural love and affection for women will be described as something awful, making you afraid to even say hello to a woman. One inappropriate remark or a single accusation of making one can destroy your reputation forever.

– If you try to speak out against these injustices, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics.

But despite all of this, young man, I am not worried for you. Because you are a male. We males have overcome impossible obstacles before, and I trust we will again.

But until that day comes young man, you’ll have to live through all of this. And for that, I am sorry.

An Argument for the Utility of a Four Year College Degree, in Anything, Yes, Anything at All

I would like to make an argument for the utility of a four year college degree in absolutely anything at all with possibly a few lightweight exceptions.

Here it is:

I majored in General Ed in junior college. I have a Masters Degree and a genius level IQ (over 140). 😉

Most of the work coming out of Studies departments nowadays is quite poor. Sociology, Anthropology, and Pedagogy are badly corrupted by PC. My own field, Linguistics, is a PC hellhole. Even Psychology is becoming badly corrupted.

You would be surprised that Criminal Justice is actually a very liberal field of study. Generally considered part of Sociology. All of the social sciences are very leftwing, History included. Also a notorious black hole of theory, as no one really knows what causes crime or makes it go up or down.

I suppose you do need to write well even in a Studies field. I have met some people with “Studies” majors, one a feminist with a Gender Studies degree. They were often very intelligent. Not sure what good the degree is.

You know, 30-40 years ago, many entry level jobs said “a Bachelors degree in anything.” This was intelligent as these folks felt that getting a BA in most things is not easy at all, and the person probably has at least a 105 and probably a 115 IQ. They probably don’t have a 100 IQ.

On top of that, the BA should have at least taught them the critical thinking so necessary in the workplace. I still believe that a degree in anything shows that this person has been taught the critical thinking skills necessary for higher level work in our society. So those junk degrees are at least valuable in that sense.

About Those “Worthless Social Science Degrees”

The argument that social science degrees are absolutely worthless for getting a job in modern society has been coming up for decades, but it has grown louder in the last ten years.

Supposedly these degrees are absolutely useless in terms of finding a job, so they are a  waste of money. Further, they are a waste of society’s money.

This argument mostly comes from conservatives, but some liberals have taken it up too. I’d like to point out that the roots of this argument lie in laissez faire free market neoliberal capitalism. So all of you making this argument are in bed with Milton Friedman. I hope you’re happy.

This is so because the only degrees that are said to be worthwhile are those degrees that are useful in a sociopathic hyper-individualistic anything goes free market economy such as we are blighted with here in the US.

The only degrees that are worthwhile are those that will get Bill Gates,  Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, Howard Schmidt, Jeffrey Epstein, Steve Jobs,  or other semi-sociopathic heartless maniac billionaires to hire you for whatever capitalist scam they are cooking up at the moment.

And everything else, everything that doesn’t allow you to be a cog in a lying, cheating, thieving corporate world, is completely and utterly useless. Because the Market is everything and everything is the Market.

In such a society it should not be surprising that conservatives, mostly conservative males, say that anything other than a math, science, tech, business or management degree is utterly worthless.

Japan is thinking of phasing out all of its social sciences in the next decade or two. There have been many calls to reduce or eliminate social science programs at US universities. These calls go right along with the total commodification of life that we are experiencing.

Furthermore, they display a contempt for knowledge and the scholarship needed to obtain it as a core value of human existence. Why are we here anyway? How about to learn? That would be one of my arguments. Not that most folks have any use for much learning, but the species as a whole does. It’s a value. No you can’t slap a dollar sticker on it and it often has little or no monetary value.  In modern society that means it is utterly worthless. Why? Because it doesn’t make a buck.

Modern Life and the Commodification of Just About Everything

There’s a lot of talk about the commodification of daily life lately as we become increasingly atomized and, yes, commodified.

Now our cars, our bodies, our homes and apartments, and not just our time and skills, are commodified. We are all supposedly to commodify every aspect of our existence that will allow us to get hired by some 1 percenter as some glorified servant. Rent your ass and everything you own to some rich man. That’s the mantra. Check out Thomas Friedman for his suggestions on how to whore out everything you own in order to keep a roof over your head and stomach filled.

Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and other atrocities are perfect of examples of the commodification of our lives in which our cars and even homes become commodities to be whored out to whomever so we can survive.

Rock and roll? Just another commodity. They play rock songs at Republican Conventions for God’s sake. Revolution? An ad campaign can blazen the word revolution across ads for all sorts of things with the result being millions in profits. Woodstock? Commodity. Hippies? Commodity. Punks? Another commodity,  nothing but a hair style. Piercings? Commodity? Tattoos, the original form of ultimate rebellion? Commodity.

All of these things once had a deep meaning which went quite a ways against the corporate capitalist consumption as a way of life culture. In fact, most of these things were rebellions against that sort of sleaze, a giant middle finger and that cheapening of all life other than a dollar bill.

Now they all have no meaning other than money objects for some capitalist to make money off of. All of their rebellion and the brilliant and even revolutionary critiques they had of society have been sucked out of them. Any of those things might as well be another product in a bin at Walmart.

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120

Alt Left: Do Not Eat Processed Meats with Nitrates or Nitrates

I am just learning this right now. The nitrates are added to processed meats such as luncheon meats, bacon, ham, sausages, pepperoni, etc. to help preserve them and to give them the pink color. Most meat that has that pink color is probably bad for you.

The nitrates and nitrites themselves are not harmful. Many vegetables have them. However, when added to meats, especially red meats, the nitrates interact with chemicals in the meat to produce nitrosamines, which are not only bad for your heart but are also a strong carcinogen.

We’ve known this for a long time now. There was a big warning leveled against these meats in the mid-1970’s.

Back then the FDA was pro-consumer, unlike now when it is viciously anti-consumer, pro-business, and anti-public health. The FDA gave the meat industry three months to prove that nitrates in meat were harmless. They couldn’t do it. Instead they made up a lie that nitrates were required to keep botulism out of food.

But meats cured without nitrates have been used for decades and there hasn’t been one case of botulism. Most botulism comes from canned foods, often canned vegetables. The can is often very old and many times the botulism causes a bulge in the can. Never eat out of any can that has developed an odd bulge in it.

In 1980, Republicans came in and a consumer and public health-hostile and pro-business FDA came in and the nitrate controversy went away. It awakened again a few years ago when British papers published studies showing that processed meats with nitrates caused thousands of cases of cancer per year in the UK. This was called the bacon scare.

The industry has been lying shamelessly about these carcinogens in our foods for almost fifty years now. Their line came right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook.

There are many websites on the Net with articles about the fake nitrate scare and even how nitrates are good for you. I just realized that I bought a package of turkey hot dogs and one of ground turkey meat that both had sodium nitrite in it.

There’s really no safe amount of this stuff you can eat. Even eating one nitrate hot dog a day significantly increases your risk of dying of cancer, typically colon cancer. If you know what’s good for you, you will quit eating this junk right now.

There are not a lot of nitrate-free processed meats out there, but there are some. There are completely safe traditional ways to cure meats that work just as well as nitrates. But the curing process can take up to 18 months. Meat companies want their meats to cure rapidly. Waiting around for them to cure cuts into profits.

So we see once again how the maximize profits directive of capitalism once again puts money and profits over human lives. Capitalism literally murders or kills humans just so other humans can make a buck. I hope you fanboys are proud of that fancy free market of yours.

Alt Left: Banned Twice from Twitter for Tweeting the Word “Whore”

In Venezuela, two opposition politicians went off to a hotel room with two women late at night. They were later hospitalized with drug overdoses. One man died. The two women were prostitutes. All early reports on the case said that the rightwingers were partying with whores and they did too much dope. People were laughing about it.

But that’s not what happened. They indeed bought two whores, but the whores doped them with scopalamine, a drug that Colombian criminals use to render people unconscious so they can rob them. The drug can kill and it killed one man and seriously injured another to the extent that he nearly died.

I started correcting people who were laughing and saying these guys were partying with women and suffered as a result.

I tweeted that the two women were whores, murderous poisoning whores at that, and that they had poisoned two men, murdering one and severely injuring another. I Tweeted this a number of times to point out that these guys were not just partying with some party girls but instead that they had been out and out murdered by two thieving murdering prostitutes.

The result?

I got banned for hate speech twice! For using the word whores to describe two thieving, murdering, scum of the earth, better off dead prostitute pieces of human garbage.

For calling two murdering psychopaths whores. Which is exactly what they were. Prostitutes are in fact whores. That is exactly what they are. Every single prostitute on this planet is nothing but a goddamned whore.

Now if they got trafficked or forced into it, I withdraw my condemnation, but if they do it of their own free will, they will get zero respect from me or any other real man out there.

Because ladies, men, I mean real men, not leftwing soyboys and cucks, do not respect prostitutes at all. They’re nothing but whores to us whether we use them or not, and a lot of us have little-disguised contempt for them, which they richly deserve.

If they want us to respect them, why don’t they quit whoring out their damned bodies? A lot of us, or me anyway, will forgive them.

Except that women who get into that line of work are usually frankly no good. Fully 45% of female prostitutes are diagnosed female psychopaths, which proves that we are correct to disrespect them because prostitutes are generally among the worst women on Earth.

They lie, cheat, and steal. They rob. And not uncommonly, as seen above, they kill, often with a male accomplice. A prostitute is as bad as a woman gets. That’s literally the floor of female morality.

So even a reformed prostitute is suspect because prostitutes regard almost all of us men as walking wallets to be milked dry of all of our possessions, and I doubt if that attitude leaves all of them when they get out of the biz.

Let a prostitute move in with you and she will probably steal from you. That’s what they do. She will spend all the money in your wallet. If she gets a hold of your bank account, she will drain it dry. If she can nab any of your credit cards, she will run them up to the limit.

And then, drained dry, she will leave you to move on to her next victim like a human black widow spider, which is pretty much what most female prostitutes are in a nutshell.

Not all prostitutes are awful human beings. Some women get off dope and out of the biz, reform, and become activists. From what I have seen of them, they are decent people.

But I am willing to bet that when they were caught up in that drug addict prostitute lifestyle (or deathstyle) they were probably pretty lousy people. Because drug addict prostitutes of either sex tend to be crappy human beings. If you don’t believe me, go make friends with a few of them and get back to me. I’ve actually known women like this. Okay? I know what they’re like.

Some women are forced and trafficked into prostitution, and they are literally innocent. My condemnations in this post do not apply to them.

And I would like to point out one more thing. Probably no group of women hate men as much as prostitutes. Even or especially former prostitutes are notorious for being some of the worst man-haters of them all. Many, many radical feminists, the most psycho manhating feminist bitches of all, are former prostitutes. Sometimes I wonder if it’s a requirement.

Many prostitutes are actually lesbians, not because they were born that way but because they despise us men so much that they actually went gay as a result. And yes, women do that. Don’t buy the “born that way” lie of Gay Politics. Not all “gay” humans were born that way. Most were, but not all.

I suppose that, like the playboys and womanizers, they know us men too well. Familiarity leads to contempt and playboys and prostitutes have seen too much of the opposite sex for their own good. They’ve both seen the most horrific behavior of the opposite sex, in spades, often over decades.

Both prostitutes and playboys understand what the opposite sex is really like, not just the good but all of the bad, and both sexes have a bad side that would frighten the Devil Himself.

But really now? Whore is illegal? I mean using it to describe women in general is ugly, I agree. It’s misogynistic, and we men should not be woman-haters just as you women should not be man-haters.

Using it to describe promiscuous women is up in the air. Many if not most men use the word that way anyway, and women actually use that word far more than we do. They are always slut-shaming each other and calling each other whores. They call each other whores far more than we do. But enough about that.

What about using the word whore to describe, you know, a prostitute? Generally a female prostitute but not necessarily, as there are male prostitutes who deserve to be called whores too, and they’re just as awful humans as the female variety if not worse because of all the testosterone-fueled aggression and violence in the male variety.

Their relationships tend to be with older men who their drain of all of their savings before moving on to the next victim. You know, kind of like the female kind?

Look up the word whore in the dictionary. It will say that the word whore means prostitute, especially female prostitute. That’s literally the goddamned definition of the word.

Even if you think it’s mean to call lowly female prostitutes by such a low name as whore, how about using the word for thieving, murdering psychopathic prostitutes? Are they a protected class now too?

I can’t believe I just got banned two times by these pussy numales at Twitter for calling thieving, murderous prostitute psychopaths whores. I’m literally incredulous at this.

I told an idiot SJW friend of mine, and this guy actually told me that whore is not a word he uses. What? Everybody uses that word. Who doesn’t use it? And what sort of a “man” will not deign to use the word whore so as to not injure precious female sensibilities. Not much of a man, I would say. Certainly not a real man, that’s for sure.

Alt Left: Another Word for “Dating” Is “Sexual Assault”

The problem with sexual assault laws is that sexual assault and dating are pretty much the same thing, just as flirting and sexual harassment are basically the same thing and sex with affirmative consent is often rape.

Therefore this idiot Puritanical, Victorian #metoo movement has just effectively outlawed flirting, dating, and a lot of sex right off the bat. Well for straight men anyway. Straight women, lesbians, and gay men can go ahead and do all that stuff and nothing ever happens to them because the #metoo BS was always intended by the dykes and manhaters who created it to constrain, reduce, and ideally eliminate heterosexual sex altogether.

What is the enemy of the feminist movement? Heterosexual men. Women get maximal freedom and never get called on anything while heterosexual men have maximum restriction (as Roissy has correctly noted) and have to live in terror of being brought up on “sexual misconduct” (What is that anyway? It sounds like something the former USSR would invent. Does it even have a definition?) charges by a feminist kangaroo court and hanging jury.

A friend was telling me about how some chick rubbed up against him absolutely on purpose in a deliberate and sexual way in a bar. And it went on for about a minute too. He didn’t react to it in any way. He just let her do it with no reaction on his part other than passivity. I responded that if a woman does that to you, just grab her and start kissing her, just like that. He was alarmed and said, “That’s sexual assault, dude.”

I laughed in his face and called him a cuck and a pussy. I guess I’ve been “sexually assaulting” women my whole life then. Another word for “dating” is “sexual assault.” If you do not “sexually assault” females you date, you will die a virgin. I am serious.

Go in for the kiss. If she backs off, pushes you away, protests, or turns her cheek, then stop. If you keep doing it when she’s protesting or pushing you away, it’s getting rapey and moving into “sexual assault” territory, plus it’s rude and a dick move in general.

Pay no attention to this ridiculous #metoo “affirmative consent” folly about asking permission (“Mother, may I?”) every time you do something physical with a female. Nothing dries up a vagina faster than that. That’s pathetic.

Don’t ever ask permission to do anything physical with a female (with a few exceptions). Just start touching her body with yours physically, see how she reacts, escalate or de-escalate based on her reaction, and go from there.

95% of the time when I did what is described above (that feminists and cucks call sexual assault), the females just totally went for it, and then whatever happened, happened. I always got at least a hot makeout session.

If you do it sanely like a normal, decent person and man, you will never get the cops called on you, and you will never be arrested for sexual assault. Neither ever happened to me and I’ve done the unsolicited physical moves above with literally hundreds of females from age 14 to 59 over a period of 45 years.

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Alt Left: SJW’s Have Declared War on Normal People and Normal Behavior

Jason:

The whole “macho thing” depends on the occupation. @Robert Lindsay might disagree – but there’s a world of difference from James Taylor singing “Shower Me People” to an auto mechanic crying. One is permissible, the other isn’t.

Anyway, obviously, being sensitive doesn’t work in the teaching, correctional jobs, construction, auto repair – a host of other occupations.

Well, the thing is that apparently I am not macho at all, but I can fake it enough that I have worked in extremely macho workplaces, and those men all pretty much accepted me. You just look at how the other guys act and talk and try to imitate them. If you already have some masculine core from your youth, you can plug into it. It’s not that hard, guys.

Of course women pretty much didn’t accept me because women are far more demanding than men when it comes to masculinity. Toxic masculinity is 100% women’s fault. Men display toxic masculinity because women demand it and won’t accept anything even 1% less. As long as women demand it, men will do it.

At those workplaces, you talk the talk and walk the walk, and everyone will be ok with you. And go along with the general vibes. At this security guard job I had where the atmosphere was extremely macho, the subject of homosexuality came up, and I said, “Fuck fags,” in a sort of disgusted, dismissive, but soft tone of voice. Most of the other guys said, “Yeah. Fuck fags.”

One man said, “Hey, you know in Laguna Beach, they got a fag mayor now! Can you believe that? A fag mayor!” I just shook my head as if to say, “That’s bullshit.” This was 1984, 35 years ago, and it was much more ok to talk like that then than it is now. I was also a lot more homophobic than I am now. I’m not sure I would say that now.

You don’t have to believe the things you say, but it helps to play the part. There aren’t any gay men around, so no one gets hurt. And that talk won’t get anyone hurt because any man who talks that way already is not keen on male homosexuality.

I remember at that same job, this Jamaican guy was walking with me, and I had tied my sweater around my waist. He said, “Damn! You’re embarrassing me!” So I tied it around my neck, and he said, “That’s better.” Apparently he thought tying your sweater around your waist was gay. Maybe it looks like a dress. Sure that’s homophobic but so what? If you are working with a bunch of homophobic guys, you have to play along. You don’t really have a choice.

I sort of agreed with him anyway. From that day on, I never wear my sweater around my waist. I always wear it around my neck instead. I don’t want to look faggy. Hell with that.

One time I was talking about sex with my girlfriend at the time, and I said she stuck her finger up my ass. This caused loud guffaws. One of the guys recoiled and said, “That’s gay! No woman is going to stick her finger up my ass!” I just laughed and said, “So what? I’m getting laid.”

Then another guy (the same guy who talked about the gay mayor) made a huge smile and said, “Is that some good pussy, Bob?” I said, “Yep, real good pussy!” and they all started laughing and saying, “Good pussy!” and slapping each other on the back and giving thumbs up signs.

Of course all of this conversation is banned now as Nazism and evil hatred of women and gays, but the thing is, this is how real masculine man talk and have always talked. And if you go anywhere on Earth, you will find that masculine straight men act approximately this exact same way.

These insane SJW’s are coding what has been normal behavior for thousands of years as evil, hatred, fascism, bigotry, and Nazism. It isn’t any of those things. It’s just the way normal, straight, masculine men normally talk and act, always have, and presumably always will.

I remember back in the wide open 1970’s when things were very liberal and wild, almost all straight men acted exactly like this, and no one cared. There were a few SJW thought police around, but most of the hip people hated them as the killjoys, party-poopers,  prudes, and churchladies that they are. SJW’s are like a dour-faced guy who raids your party and drops a turd in the punch bowl while yelling, “Party’s over!”

Back then, the world would have laughed if SJW’s said, “Mick Jagger said the word bitch. He’s a misogynist and we must boycott all his records!”

If they said, “Johnny Rotten said the words cunt and fag. He’s a misogynist and a homophobe. Everyone boycott his records,” everyone, including every punk on Earth would have laughed right in their faces.

Leftwing men have turned into the most pathetic bunch of sissified girlymen on Earth.

SJW’s have declared war on people, especially men, acting normal.

Alt Left: 80% of US Women Refuse to Identify As Feminists

Studies of millennial women appear to show that 20% of them identify as feminists. Not sure if that’s a good figure, as it was hard to find the actual survey, and I averaged together the rates for the different races of women, Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White. When I averaged together the rates of the four races, I got 20%. The link for those figures was to a page doing surveys on millenials. An article saying 20% of women identify as feminists linked to a page doing surveys on millenials.

In addition, an average of only 27% of European women identify as feminists. So 73% of European women reject modern feminism.

On the other hand, most said that they were full equal rights for women, maybe 80% support that. So you can argue that they support feminist goals while rejecting identification with the modern feminist movement.

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity. Bottom line: feminism has a bad name. Why? They’re fanatics. Case in point: your average feminist, wild eyes, danger hair and the rest.

The 3rd wave sites I have been on are not so dykey and anti-feminine as the truly insane radical feminist sites where the women are nearly diagnostically psychotic, but the man-hating BS is definitely still there, though quite a bit toned down.

Plus a lot of 3rd wavers are heterosexual, really like to have sex with men, and are often horny as Hell. Feminist men almost get mobbed on those sites.

Alt Left: The Single Factor that Moderates Feminist Man-hatred

Love of dick.

There’s one thing that moderates a feminist. Does she still like dick? Is she strictly dickly? As long as they still like cock, the man-hatred never gets ramped up to extreme levels.

The worst manhaters of all are lesbians, either biological or straight women who turned lez due to extreme man-hatred. Many of the extreme manhaters are straight women who have simply given up on men to become cat ladies and marry their vibrators.

As long as they’re still fucking us, they just can’t hate us too much. At some point  they run into a wall and can’t hate us anymore. The cock-love serves to block the man-hatred at some point.

I hear that there are misogynists who have a lot of sex with women, but it doesn’t seem to work that way with women. You don’t hear about a lot of man-haters who have lots of sex with men other than prostitutes, where this is quite common.

Yes, many prostitutes are extreme manhaters. Many have turned lesbian due to their extreme man-hatred. How they can stand to keep having sex with us all the time is beyond me. Much worse are former prostitutes, many of whom have a near-psychotic hatred of men. Former prostitutes now vicious manhaters are extremely common in the radfem movement.

Granted, prostitutes no doubt see the very worst of men, but then so do players and womanizers. Which may be why so many womanizers are misogynists. Womanizers and prostitutes both know the opposite sex too well. Familiarity breeds contempt. They’ve both seen the bad side of the opposite sex in spades, whereas most of us are spared the worst and remain dreamy-eyed, swooning, and addicted to the opposite sex far into middle age.

Ignorance is bliss, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too much knowledge can be downright fatal. That’s called a reality overdose, something most of us spend our lives downing Pretty Lie Pills to avoid. Being lie-addicted seems silly, but if it keeps you above the ground, so be it. You do what it takes in life and damn the rest.

Alt Left: Radical Feminism Is Not a Tiny Fringe Movement in Feminism

In surveys, young women say that they associate feminism with lesbianism, man-hatred, and attacks on femininity.

Having spent a lot of time on feminist boards, I would definitely say that those associations are reality based, in particular on radical feminist forums. Radfems are 22% of all feminists. That means that there are 4-5 million radical feminist women in the US.

SJW liars say that radical feminists are a tiny fringe group in feminism. That’s not true at all. It’s a huge movement. And most of the big names in feminism were radical feminists, including Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer, Robin Morgan, Sheila Jeffries, Julie Bindel, Andrea Dworkin, Katharine McKinnon.

The entire #metoo movement and the very concept of sexual harassment itself, especially the pernicious hostile workplace environment amendment to the theory, came straight out of radical feminism. Sexual harassment theory was birthed by Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon, two of the most deranged manhating bitches that ever lived. These are the intellectual braintrusts behind metoo.

Author Stephen King on Trump

Here.

He was years ahead of his time in seeing this phenomenon:

I had written about such men before. In The Dead Zone, Greg Stillson is a door-to-door Bible salesman with a gift of gab, a ready wit, and the common touch. He is laughed at when he runs for mayor in his small New England town, but he wins.

He is laughed at when he runs for the House of Representatives (part of his platform is a promise to rocket America’s trash into outer space), but he wins again. When Johnny Smith, the novel’s precognitive hero, shakes his hand, he realizes that some day Stillson is going to laugh and joke his way into the White House, where he will start World War Three.

Anyone see/read that one?

…started thinking Donald Trump might win the presidency in September of 2016. By the end of October, I was almost sure. Thus, when the election night upset happened, I was dismayed but not particularly surprised. I didn’t even think it was much of an upset, in spite of the Huffington Post aggregate poll, which gave Hillary Clinton a 98% chance of winning – an example of wishful thinking if ever there were one.

Some of my belief arose from the signage I was seeing. I’m from northern New England, and in the run-up to the election I saw hundreds of Trump-Pence signs and bumper stickers but almost none for Clinton-Kaine.

To me this didn’t mean there were no Clinton supporters in the houses I passed or the cars ahead of me on Route 302; what it did seem to mean was that the Clinton supporters weren’t particularly invested. This was not the case with the Trump people, who tended to have billboard-sized signage in their yards and sometimes two stickers on their cars (TRUMP-PENCE on the left; HILLARY IS A CRIMINAL on the right).

Brexit also troubled me. Most of the commentators brushed its importance aside, saying that the issue of whether or not Britain should leave the EU was very different from that of who should become the American president, and besides, British and American voters were very different animals.

I agreed with neither assessment, because there was a vibe in the air during most of 2016, a feeling that people were both frightened of the status quo and sick of it. Voters saw a vast and overloaded apple cart lumbering past them. They wanted to upset the motherfucker and would worry about picking up those spilled apples later. Or just leave them to rot.

Clinton voters were convinced she’d win, even if they saw her as a ho-hum candidate at best. Many did not even bother going to the polls, which was a large (and largely unstated) factor in her loss. Trump voters, on the other hand, could not wait to pull those levers. They didn’t just want change; they wanted a man on horseback. Trump filled the bill.

Alt Left: Whither the Alt Left?

Sami: Robert, every single counterpoint you make brings us back, full circle, to the ultimate question concerning what the Alt-Left is really about:
Does it aspire, truly, to become a genuine, mass-based political movement with a clearly-articulated platform, that can change this country for the better from the ground up? Or is it a mere, irrelevant intellectual exercise on a few blogs?

 
There were 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook recently. It has now dropped down to ~6,000.
Also the existing Alt Left seems to have been colonized by regular Democratic Party people pushing anti-Republican partisan politics along with typical SJW stuff. The best analysis of the Alt Left right now is that it has been co-opted by Democratic Party liberal entryists.
And then the movement itself died down for some unknown reason. We had a terrible problem with being swamped by rightwingers and Libertarians the whole time we were popular on Facebook. It was a never-ending nightmare keeping the rightwingers out.
The problem is that nowadays when you go anti-SJW, you get swamped by rightwingers. And everyone on the liberal-Left is pretty much automatically an SJW.
And there is an odd process whereby as leftwing people get more and more anti-SJW, they start moving more and more away from left economics towards more openly promoting capitalism. This makes no sense to me. Why on Earth would capitalism be opposed to anti-SJWism? Feminism is just a group of women to sell women-oriented products to. Capitalists would love to cater to Blacks to sell them stuff. Capitalists will fall over backwards to cater to and suck up to gay people if only to get them to buy stuff. Why should capitalists care about Muslims? Capitalists would love to cater to this group and sell products especially for them. There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for capitalists to be anti-SJW. It makes no sense. And it makes a lot more sense for them to go full SJW if only to sell more stuff to new groups.
It makes somewhat more sense that left economics be tied in with SJWism, as both are about equality, but there’s no reason left economics should hate or oppose heterosexuals, Whites, or men. Why should it? None of those three groups have anything to do with economics. Also the Left has always been sexual liberationist, but now that feminism has taken over the Left, the Left has become as prudish, Victorian and sex-hating as the Christian Right. Puritanism has no logical connection with the left or left economics. Why do Left economics have to do with sex and fucking? Nothing.
The Alt Left was an attempt to sever this horrible intertwining of left economics with SJWism and rightwing economics with anti-SJWism, but we haven’t had much success at that. When liberal Left people go anti-SJW, they abandon Left economics too. And no one subscribing to Left economics wants to go against SJWism. So economics and the culture war are still horribly tied together, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle them. It’s so frustrating.
There are several online magazines which people are referring to as Alt Left. There are some folks on Youtube calling themselves Alt Left, and there are others who are being referred to as Alt Left. I would say that it’s a very small movement, but it definitely exists.
Part of the problem is that people like me are too lazy to promote it. I have my own Alt Left group on Facebook, and I encountered quite a bit of interest in the subject. I was also on some of the other Alt Left groups, and there were a lot of interested and curious folks. The problem is mostly just laziness. It’s incredibly hard work to grow these movements, and I for one am just too lazy to do the hard work. But there are others still working on this project.
There is also the Realist Left, another small project that definitely exists.
A political scientist in Poland got interested in us and wrote a couple of pieces about us in political journals. A couple of other political journals over there also wrote us up. Mostly no one has the faintest idea of who we are, so first of all, we need publicity more than anything else.

Alt Left: Feminist Retards: We Will Keep Screaming Until Rape, Sexual Assault, and Child Molestation Are Ended Once and for All!

Feminists actually believe that there will come a time when no man will ever rape or sexually assault a woman and no man will ever molest a child. God, feminists are stupid! Feminists think that men commit sexual crimes because they are taught to be some ridiculous rape culture. So you, me, and all of the rest of us men grew up in a “rape culture” that taught us to rape women!
Look feminist morons.
From the very beginning of recorded time, men have raped and sexually assaulted women and other men, and they have probably molested children. These behaviors are found in all societies that have ever been studied by anthropologists. There will always be crime and criminals. I will die in 20-30 years, and there will still be lots of crime and plenty of criminals. As long as there is crime and there are criminals, you will have rapists, sexual assaulters, child molesters.
Trying to eliminate human criminality and human evil is a fool’s errand. No sane person thinks we will ever be rid of these things.  With crime, all you can hope for is to reduce the rate of it. With criminals, all you can wish for is that there will be fewer of them. For the crimes of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, all we can ever wish for is to reduce the rate of it. Intellectually handicapped feminists can scream all they want that they will not stop screeching until rape, assault and molestation are wiped off the planet, but that doesn’t mean that  the rest of us have to listen to their foolishness.
According to feminist pinheads, every society on Earth must have a rape culture then because feminists say if there is one rape in your culture, then you have a rape culture!
It’s not a matter of excusing this behavior by saying “boys will be boys” but instead it is a recognition that human violence against other humans and the human potential for evil will never end. It has always been a part of our legacy as a species.
Feminists have this idea that they will create this utopia where males will have it drummed into their heads not to rape and molest, as if we don’t get that drummed into our heads a million times as it is.
Supposedly the rape culture BS goes back to the toxic masculinity garbage. Toxic masculinity (which is just normal masculinity really) apparently causes men to rape, assault and molest! So if we wage war on toxic masculinity and get rid of it, we will get rid of rape, assault and molestation! Idiocy. In this stupid utopian vision, all men will be feminist mangina cucks who are shedding off all their masculinity, toxic or not.
Part of this agenda says that all men have to be called out. You, me,  and all  other men have to be called out for this brain-dead campaign. Even if we don’t rape, assault or molest ourselves, we need to police other men constantly. Every time we hear a man say a sexist remark, we need to stand up and call him out. Now I don’t even know what a sexist remark even is. I don’t even know what sexism is. Like racism, it’s one more word that’s been MOAB’d by feminist and SJW ridiculous abuse of the term that it doesn’t mean much of anything anymore. What’s the definition of racism? If it makes some idiot Black person mad, it’s racism! Well, how will we know if we are making racist remarks? We won’t! We will only find out when your Black overlords loom over our heads  with hammers, informing us that we just said something racist and to take it back or else.
What is a sexist remark? Nobody knows! Apparently it’s whatever some fool woman says it is! If you said something that made some female dingbat mad, it was sexist! How do we know not to say sexist things? We don’t! We have to wait until some feminist harpie  appears with a meat cleaver, threatening to chop our penises off for uttering something sexist, demanding that we take it back or they take a penile scalp.
I hate all of these stupid words and in general, words like this are banned on my website. You can’t run around screaming fool words like racist, sexist, homophobe, antisemite, transphobe, etc. here. Yes you can call people racist, but they have to be pretty egregious. The word sexist is permanently banned on this site because it has no meaning other than a knife feminists use to castrate us men.
I agree that the world misogynist has a meaning. Feminists scream “Misogyny!” about every other sentence. 95% of the time some feminist bonehead yells, “misogynist” it’s a false alarm. On the other hand, misogyny does exist. You can see quite a bit of open misogyny in the Manosphere. PUA sites are cesspools of misogyny. MGTOW’s wrote the book on misogyny. Incels are steeped in some truly dangerous misogyny. And MRA’s engage in a fair amount of misogyny themselves. Outside of those places, I don’t see much of it.
The only sane definition of sexism is if a man thinks men are superior to women.  However, women are just as sexist as men in my opinion. I meet a lot more sexist women than sexist men. The number of female chauvinists out there who think that men are inferior to women is very high. I know a couple of them very well. Having been abused by female sexists and chauvinists who cackle with glee in their smug superiority of us men while radiating contempt for us men as inferiors, I can tell you right now that sexism feels pretty bad when it’s coming from women and directed at men.
If it feels that bad for us, think how it must make women feel. It must make them feel as bad as it makes me feel. I would not want to subject any woman to the feelings that I experienced from experiencing sexist abuse. If we don’t like it when they do it to us, we should not do it to them. We men should not act like we are superior to women and treat them as if they are some inferior breed of human. That’s the only definition of sexism that makes sense.  As long as you don’t feel that way,  you’re not a sexist no matter how many times some Down’s Syndrome feminist accuses you of being one. If you feel that women and men are equal and men are not better than women, then your conscience is clear.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women.
Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine!
However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back.
Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity.
All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis.
Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic.
I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests.
A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way.
All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior.
The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along.
Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men.
As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done.
Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements.
More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself.
If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Sex-Negative Feminists Force Beto O'Rourke to Apologize for No Reason

Beto is running against Ted Cruz for the US Senate seat in Texas. Cruz will be very hard to beat. Texas is 17 points more Republican than the country as a whole. It’s has been a wildly reactionary and backwards state forever now. Nevertheless, Beto has been on Cruz’s heels, often trailing him by only 2-3 points. There is no way that a Democratic challenger should be that close to Ted Cruz. That in itself is a very good sign. Nevertheless, Cruz will be very hard to beat. I think Beto could possibly beat Cruz, but he probably only has a 25% chance of beating Cruz. There has been a bit of a scandal over Beto’s drunk driving arrest twenty years ago. He also used to play in a punk rock band when he was young. Cruz’ campaign tried to make the punk band a campaign issue, but no one cared. The drunk driving arrest doesn’t seem to be helping Cruz much either.
Nevertheless, 27 years ago, when Beto was a very young man and a student at Columbia University, he wrote a review of a Broadway show, The Will Rodgers Follies, in which he said that the dancers had no talent at all and

…whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks.

What’s wrong with saying that?
In addition, the article was coming from a morally upright point of view. That is, he was criticizing the show for being a degenerate sleazefest:

…one of the most glaring examples of the sickening excesses and moral degradations of our culture.
Keith Carradine in the lead role is surrounded by perma-smile actresses whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks…

I swear, if a straight man opens up his mouth and says anything sexual at all, the feminists try to ruin him. It’s pretty hard to go through your whole life without writing or saying something sexual. But if you ever do that, the feminists will have your hide and ruin you forever.
This shows me once again that the goal of modern feminism is to stop heterosexual men from having sex with women altogether. The fact that they get furious if we even talk about heterosexual sex implies either that feminists are profoundly prudish, sex-hating Victorian prigs or else they simply want to stop men from having sex with women, or both. I don’t think there is any more controversy about this.
If we can never talk or write about sex, how are we supposed to do it? It’s incredible how puritanical the Feminist Left has become. They are worse than the Christian Right by now. Who needs Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson when we have Gloria Steinem and Jessica Valenti.
As usual whenever someone offends the feminists, Beto had to make a public apology and kiss the feet of his feminist masters. How pathetic.
From the Alternet comments:

This is just the kind of self-immolating “political correctness” run amok that is destroying, if it hasn’t already destroyed, the U.S. left by turning it into a laughing stock to most ordinary Americans!

Exactly!
Feminism and SJWism are going to be the end of the West if we don’t stop them.

Alt Left: Rape Culture Idiocy

Is there anyone on my site who thinks this rape culture folly even exists at all? I mean I’ve never raped anyone in my life. None of my friends have ever raped anyone in their lives. I don’t know any men who have ever raped anyone in their lives, at least that I know of. Where’s the rape culture. If this was a rape culture I probably would have been raping all this time.
Rape culture theory says the US has a rape culture that encourages men to rape females, that lets males off the hook when they do it because police officers, DA’s, judges, juries and our fellow men in general all sympathize with the rapists and let them off the hook. This is madness. Most men don’t sympathize with real actual rapists, I mean males who break the actual laws against rape. I’m talking real rape here. Real rape is legal rape. There’s real rape and there’s feminist rape. Feminist rape is whenever some female says she got raped, it was rape, no matter what happened. Feminists expand the definition of  rape every year and make ever increasing and ever crazier demands in terms of consent.
The intention here is obvious. Many feminists hate men, hate masculinity and especially hate heterosexual men. This is especially true of radical feminists. I assure you that if radical feminists could make heterosexual sex illegal for men, they would do it. In fact the feminists who first made up these laws hated heterosexual men, said all heterosexual sex was rape, and seemed to be trying to make it as illegal as possible. I refer to Andrea Dworkin and Katharine McKinnon. All sexual harassment came directly from Dworkin and McKinnon, two of the most insane man-hating bitches that have ever lived. Robin Morgan also made some statements about shutting down heterosexual sex and forcing all women to be lesbians. They weren’t exactly shy about their goals.
Do male cops really sympathize with actual rapists, I mean stranger rapists like the guy with the ski mask and a can of mace types? Do male judges really sympathize with these guys? Male DA’s like rapists? We men in general like rapists and support them and try to get them off the hook?
This whole theory sounds completely insane. There is no rape culture in this country, for God’s sake. Now if you go down to Latin America or over to the Philippines, India, Egypt, or South Africa, now you are getting somewhere. If we had a rape culture, all of those men would not have lost their jobs for flirting with women (sexual harassment) or touching women (sexual assault). There would have been no #metoo nonsense. There would have been no #timesup crap. The Kavanaugh hearings would not be rocking the nation like they are. The fact that all these things are happening are arguments against the existence of a rape culture, not in favor of one.

Alt Left: I Am Now Banned from Facebook

Just got a 3-day ban from Facebook for making this comment:

Trannies are mentally ill!

This violates Facebook’s code against hate speech. Can someone tell me what part of this comment is hate speech?
Is the world tranny hate speech? I thought it was just slang for transsexual. Is tranny a slur now? I can’t keep up with the ever-expanding list of words that get banned as slurs.
Is it hate speech to say transgender people are mentally ill? I am trying to figure out what I did wrong here. It was on a Marxist site.
There are some tranny morons on there, including a man who thinks he’s a woman. Most of the posters are extreme SJW Marxists who love transgender people for some crazy reason. It was probably a tranny who flagged the post. They were the worst SJW’s of them all, and they are profoundly censorious, always trying to bust people and get them in trouble for what people say.
Damn, I am getting banned from the whole Internet now.
Note: I just learned that tranny is a slur along the lines of faggot, etc.
Just to show how much I care about BS like that, I would like to say the following:
Tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny tranny.
I would also like to say:
Faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot.

Alt Left: Teaching Little Children to Be Gay

Well, that’s exactly what they are doing here. The woman narrating this video is very cool, an anti-SJW liberal! She’s pretty much Alt Left, and I wish she would identify as that. Unfortunately, there is no way to communicate with her as is the case with so many journalists and critics.

Alt Left: Feminism in Academia and Social Work

Rod Fleming: The trouble is, they’ve infested academia, and the schools of education and social work were the very first to fall. Essentially, all teachers now are Postmodern, ‘intersectional’ feminists and all social workers believe the nuclear family is an abomination and the State is the only body capable of raising children. In other words, that they know better than parents do, how to bring up their own kids.
This is not new; the creeping infestation has been going on for decades. It’s just that the reaction to Trump’s election threw it at the fan and the secret is out. Google the Orkney child-abuse scandal.

Yes, they have infested the academy. They are mostly in the Women’s Studies program, although my field of Linguistics got taken over by the worst SJW’s a long time. Really all of the social sciences have gone SJW, and all universities are hotbeds of SJWism. However, I am acquaintances with two university professors, one in the US and one in Europe. Both of them hate modern SJWism. The American professor is so famous that he has a Wikipedia entry. They both act like they have to be very quiet about this or they might lose their jobs though.
Wait, Rod.
Your Reaction gets in the way of a lot of your otherwise decent theory.
3rd wave intersectional feminists do not want to get rid of the nuclear family. Some 2nd wave radical and other feminists talked about that. These were usually coming from a Hard Left Marxist POV.
You would be hard-pressed to find an “abolish the nuclear family feminist” anywhere now. They don’t exist anymore. And I don’t know anyone, no matter how leftwing, who thinks the state does a better job of raising kids than the family does. They didn’t even believe that in the USSR.
If you work in mental health though, you better be on board with modern feminism. If you’re not and your views get out, the feminists will try to get your license pulled. I could not believe how hard my male therapists sucked up to women. It was actually rather disgusting.  I want a therapist who’s a man, not some cuck.

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

Alt Left: I Got Banned by Alternet for Opposing Radical Feminist Idiocy

Chalk up Alternet as one more left site destroyed by feminist fanatics. I think feminuts have taken over pretty much the entire Left at this point. There’s no way to be a liberal or Leftist now without subscribing to radical feminism.
I forget exactly what the article was about, but the discussion descended to Jeffrey Epstein of Pedo Island fame. Epstein recruited mostly legal age teenage girls over the age of 16 to work as models at Pedo Island. They ended up working as prostitutes for Mr. Epstein.
Epstein also had quite a bit of sex with girls younger than that, mostly 14-15, but he is accused of having sex with a 12 and 13 year old girl too. Charges were brought against him for having sex with a number of 14 and 15 year old girls, all of whom he paid for the favor.
So he was accused of having sex with many underage teenage prostitutes. Most took the money, but one 14 year old girl refused to take the money and decided to prosecute. Epstein had paid her an unknown amount for a handjob. He was convicted and sentenced to 13 months in federal prison for this crime.
The article went on to call this Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, a ridiculous term which makes no sense. The girls Epstein was having sex with were not trafficked. To be trafficked, you have to have a pimp. If you work on your own with no pimp, you are an independent businesswoman, and you’re not being trafficked unless you are trafficking  yourself, which is a bizarre idea.
All of this silliness has been made much worse by radical feminists’ bizarre insistence that all prostitution is somehow “trafficking.” When a man buys a prostitute’s services, he is “trafficking” her. Make sense. Of course not, nothing a radical feminist says is rational, but who cares! Radical feminists don’t logic. Anyway, I attacked this whole ridiculous concept, and the radical feminists at Alternet banned me.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Marianne (feminist retard): “DMST comes in various forms, including prostitution, pornography, stripping and other sexual acts into which an underage child is forced or enticed by an adult.”
Robert Lindsay: This is semantic abuse, government style.
LOL she wasn’t forced. She did it over her own free will just like all the rest of the little whores. They did it for the money, same as all prostitutes do. No one was forcing anyone to do anything.
“Rape parties” LOL. You’re kidding. Most of those girls were quite willing. A lot of them were coming to his place in New York and they were often 16-17, which is legal in NY. A lot of these girls were being invited down to Pedo Island, and they went there quite willingly.
Epstein did rape some girls, but a lot of them were doing it consensually for money. Consensual sex between an adult man and a teenage girl is hardly rape. The best term for it is “illegal intercourse.”
There were hundreds of girls who came forward and said Epstein paid them for sex, and Epstein paid off every single one of them. The 14 year old would not take the money and filed charges. That’s the only reason he went down at all.
13 months in prison for a handjob from a very willing 14 year old girl sounds about right. It’s hardly the crime of the century.
It’s funny because you abused the term “sex trafficking.”

As you can see, anytime an underage girl sells her ass sexually, she’s being “trafficked”? Trafficked by whom? Who forced her to whore her teen ass out as a high school prostitute? In some cases, no one.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Marianne (feminist idiot): This is also known as domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST), which is the commercial sexual exploitation of children through buying, selling, or trading the sexual services of American children.
Robert Lindsay: That’s a bullshit definition of sex trafficking. Who made that up? Radical feminists? Every underage prostitute out there (she was quite willing to whore herself to Epstein) is “being trafficked?” WTF. Who’s trafficking them? The men who buy sex from them are “trafficking” them? That’s madness.
I keep seeing these endless references to females being “trafficked,” and I keep wondering what in the Hell they are talking about. Generally the term means the woman is in bondage to someone, say a pimp, and is being moved around the country to prostitute for him, and she’s not making much money out of it either. It’s more or less sex slavery. It’s hard to understand how a teenage girl entrepreneuring as a prostitute is a sex slave.
Now I am getting it. For radical feminists just about every prostitute out there is somehow “being trafficked.” It all adds up now.
Flagged for semantic abuse and word murder by the radical feminuts.

She came back with more nonsense – that Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking for paying a 14 year old girl $200 for a handjob. How the Hell did he “traffic” that girl by giving her a wad of cash for a simple sex act? Radical feminists are murdering language again, but that’s nothing new.

Robert Lindsay
Robert Lindsay Marianne_C 2 months ago
Removed
Robert Lindsay: He didn’t get convicted of sex trafficking. He got convicted of paying a 14 year old girl to give him a handjob lol.

Alt Left: Praise for the Conservative Left

Although the SJW author of the piece that quotes Selbourne in the New Statesman attacks Selbourne, what Selbourne describes is nothing less than the Alt Left itself.
In a very early bulletin board post, a poster described my Alternative Left as conservative Leftists.” When Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York in 1969, he called himself a left conservative. Mailer has continued to describe himself as a left conservative to this day.
Well, that’s exactly what we are.
We are somewhat socially conservative on the Cultural Left Freakshow, but we are Left on everything else. According to our dispensation, Selbourne would be Alt Left, as he despises the moronic SJW Left. And as he brilliantly points out, the unlimited freedoms (not really unlimited though as look at how SJW Feminism wants to stop heterosexual flirting, dating and sex) to be as weird and crazy as you want are really the freedoms of neoliberalism.
This is radical individualism taken to its ultimate without any regard for the good of society. And radical individualism in Culture goes right along with radical individualism is business and the rest of society. If government has to get out of the lives of all the SJW freaks, then obviously it has to get out of the lives of US business and the rich too, right?

Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also.

Capitalism runs on a culture of individualism, and radical individualism is the ultimate capitalist society. Capitalists say, “There is no such thing as society.”
And in a Cultural Left world where everyone is running around flying their freak flag du jour, there’s no society either. Everyone has a different hair color. Everyone has a different sexual micro-orientation and gender micro-identity.
Everyone is divided against everyone else. The women workers are egged on to hate the male workers. The Black workers are egged on to hate the White workers. The gay workers are encouraged to hate the straight workers. The tranny workers are prompted to hate the cisgender workers. Everyone hates everyone. No one works together on any societal goals because everyone hates each other too much.
Now that the working class is divided into factions at each other’s throats, society is demolished, all humans are atomized, and the capitalists can go on their merry rapacious way, destroying everything in their path, including whatever is left of society, like they always do.

In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence.

I like how he describes the Cultural Left as the free market of culture. That’s exactly what it is!

David Selbourne, in the left-of-center New Statesmen, writes::
With socialism at the end of its historical evolution, the “Left” now lacks a coherent sense of what progress is. It has only a ragbag of causes and issues, rational and irrational, urgent and idle: a politics of personal rights and ‘lifestyle choices’, of anti-racism and environmental protection, of multicultural separatism, individual identity and gender, and much else besides.
Neither rhyme nor reason — and certainly not socialist reason — can be made of it, especially when mere transgression is confused with progress.
In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence. Nor is today’s ‘freedom’n’liberty’, whether Right or ‘Left’, the freedom fought for in the Reformation or in the revolutionary overthrow of the anciens régimes. It is not the freedom for which the 19th-century emancipationists and the suffragettes struggled. It is the freedom to do what one wants and the devil take the hindmost. No wonder that the far Right is advancing.
There is ignorance too in this pseudo-Left Libertarianism. It is reactionary, not progressive, to promote the expansion of individual freedoms without regard to the interests of the social order as a whole. Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also. The rapacious equity trader has as much right to be free as you or me; these ‘rights’ differ only in scale and consequence, not in essence.

I would actually agree with the following, and this is why I am an extreme statist at heart because face facts, socialism is statism taken to its ultimate ends.
From the Libertarian author:

It grabbed the methods of conservatism, embracing state power as the means of planning permissable changes and preventing others.

We don’t hate the state. We love the state! The state is the people personified as a single governmental entity, acting in the interests of the people to whom it serves, as Mao points out.

“The effort to escape from State control has always been the sign of liberty; the effort to enforce State control has always been the sign of Conservative reaction.” For this reason: “Socialism, in so far as it postulates State control, is Conservative in thought.”
Oliver Brett, Defense of Liberty, 1922

Fine. We are conservatives then. We are the Conservative Left!

Professor E. Harris Harbison of Princeton, concurred: “The truly ‘radical’ movement of the later medieval and early modern period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, ‘radical’ is today almost synonymous with ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’. …It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, ‘progressive’ and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward.”
Socialism and Modern Life, 1952

Fine, not a problem! I was always wondering when the Rightists and Libertarians would reclaim the word liberal.

Walter Lippman wrote: “…I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word.”
Carl A. Keyser, Spare None: the Federal Octopus: How it Grew and Other Tales, 1972
 

Sounds good.
Liberal historically has never meant anything like US social liberalism. In most of the world, liberal is a dirty word. It’s synonymous with neoliberalism. Liberalism in economics means classical liberal or neoclassical economics. It’s Ricardo and Smith all the way to Mises and Hayek, without stopping.
In the rest of the world, it tends to mean the “free minds and free markets” garbage that American reactionary foreign policy claims to support in their lying propaganda. Note once again the tie-in of social freedoms with freedom of Capital. You want free elections, gay rights, feminism, porn, civil liberties and the rest? Fine, you have to let the market run free with no restictions from the state whatsoever.
According to this nonsense, you can’t have free minds without free markets, and you can’t have free markets without free minds. Any restrictions on the free market are automatically symptomatic of a dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
This is why every Left government on Earth immediately gets called a dictatorship by US foreign policy. Because to the sick American way, socialism in any way,  shape or form is automatically undemocratic and dictatorial by its very nature.
This nonsense places economics over politics as Economics Uber Alles. Here economics determines the nature of the state.
If the market is free, you have a democracy automatically, no questions asked. Never mind the death squads that just murdered 200,000 people and all the peaceful opposition, the election that was just stolen, the US sponsored coup to “restore democracy” that resulted in the 17 year long “democracy saving” dictatorship, the politicized police, army, judiciary, the rich owning all the media and rendering freedom of speech a sick joke, the money-based elections giving rise to the “democracy of the dollar” and the dictatorship over the people.
And if  you have any type of socialism, you automatically have a dictatorship. I suppose Norway and Sweden must be dictatorships then. Never mind that you have the freest and fairest elections on Earth as they have in Venezuela. No matter. Elections can never be free enough in a socialist country. Even if they are the freest and fairest elections on Earth, it’s automatically a dictatorship simply by dint of being socialist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Feminist Cancer Strikes Oxford, Soon Goes Malignant

Feminist poison strikes Oxford, turns many female students into man-scared and man-hating dykes or shut-ins, turns men into terrified incels. 
This is leftwing progress! The Modern Left is pathetic!
[By Damian Thomson, from The Spectator, 13 June 2015] Oxford’s New Feminist Hit Squad: Cute Tumblr. Scary Politics.
“We’re at the tail end of Trinity term at Oxford, when the university finally begins to look like the ‘city of dreaming spires’ depicted in the postcards. The dismal weather cheers up; the quadrangles are soaked in sunlight; and the students — just about to leave for the summer — grab these precious few weeks to do Oxfordy things like punting and slurping Pimm’s.
Even the swots and the lefties are filled with the spirit of Brideshead. Parties spring up on every available lawn; the chatter of gossip and teasing grows louder and louder until the sun goes down, people start throwing up and the college authorities herd the revellers on to the street.
But this year a group of undergraduates — mostly women — will be shunning all this. They will be staying in their college rooms, fingers flying across their keyboards as they scowl at the screen. They are the hard core of a feminist cult that has gripped Oxford and makes life miserable for hundreds of undergraduates across the university. The cult uses Facebook to snoop on students who aren’t ‘proper’ feminists. It tries to force young women to use its extreme rhetoric and denounces them if they don’t.
Its digital tirades can poison college life. One young woman told me that new friends she’d made at Oxford suddenly shunned her in the dining hall after the word went out that she held ‘incorrect’ views on women’s rights. (She was so worried about repercussions that she asked me not to mention which area of women’s rights she felt strongly about.)
I’m going to call the cult ‘Country Living’. That’s not quite accurate: it’s actually spelled without the ‘o’, a gynecological pun that’s the only evidence of a sense of humor you’ll find among its leaders. I reckon calling it Country Living will make them cross. Which, to be fair, is not difficult. These lasses are very, very cross all the time. If there was an Oxford blue for taking offence, they’d be champions.
Country Living is an internet cult that polices behavior both online and offline. Its manifesto can be read by anyone who visits its page on the blogging platform Tumblr, which is mocked up to look like a 1970’s student magazine. Here we learn that anyone can become a C-word, which is a badge of honor, not a term of abuse. Those four letters have been ‘reclaimed’ by the group. (Like feminists everywhere, Country Living does a lot of reclaiming.)
But to earn this honor you must pass tests as severe as the binge-drinking initiation rituals of an all-male Oxford dining society. You must promise to ‘accept that gender is a social construction and embrace its fluidity’. You must ‘recognize your place and privilege within intersectionality’.
And if you fail to do these things, Country Living wants to know. It has spies all over Oxford. They’re not necessarily ‘members’ of the group — as with many religious cults, it’s not clear who is and isn’t a member, and fellow-travelers are often the most snoopy zealots.
A student can be chatting with friends in the Missing Bean, an espresso bar in quaint Turl Street, and say something ‘problematic’ — the Country Living buzzword, meaning anything that deviates from its rigid feminist doctrine, obsessed with transsexual rights. The Country ladies are ferocious earwiggers, and if the student is on the cult’s radar, the remark will find its way back to HQ. Which, bizarrely, is not an office but a Facebook group.
This is where Country Living rules on the correct ideological approach to any current issue. Its Facebook pages are designed as a ‘safe space’ for feminists — meaning an unsafe space for anyone who deviates from the line. As with many sectarian outfits, the smaller the deviation, the bigger the hissy fit. ‘The ultimate crime is not being a Tory man, but being the wrong sort of feminist,’ explains one woman student who, like everyone I talked to, asked not to be named.
The Country set love shutting down debates on their pages. Just after the general election, whose result came as a nasty shock to them, their Facebook administrator Shaina Yang announced that ‘I can’t allow these discussions [about the Tory victory] to continue until we release a clarified statement of what CL rules say is okay and isn’t okay on this topic.’ No wonder that, according to a survey by the Oxford Tab newspaper, a third of Country Living Facebook members were ‘too nervous’ to post in the group.
Such nervousness isn’t confined to Facebook. ‘The influence of CL goes way beyond its membership,’ says one male undergraduate. ‘Girls who come up to Oxford as mild feminists pick up the message that they have to take offence at anything that might be considered misogynistic. So boys have to monitor their own language, pretend to be worked up about trans issues, if they’re to stand any chance of getting laid.’ Something similar happened during the early Seventies heyday of old-style feminism, when guys would denounce patriarchy in order to get laid. But they didn’t have an internet Stasi to worry about.
Adds another student: ‘You see members of the college rugby club glancing around anxiously to see if there are any women present before they can tell a joke. Ironically, they’re the ones who need a safe space.’ I ask him how he can tell the difference between Country sympathizers and the hard core. ‘Weirdly dyed hair is one clue,’ he says. ‘But a better one is “problematic”. The hard core insert it into practically every sentence.’
All this is Oxford at its worst. The university has always been a playground for egomaniacs and control freaks, unlike milder, more studious Cambridge. Although there are Country members in other universities, its origins are no accident.
‘We insist that grammar and spelling are elitist and don’t matter because of a hundred years of linguistic study showing that. When people who insist on hyper-patriotism get language wrong, we use the errors in their language to suggest they aren’t qualified to judge complex matters.’ That’s a comment by one Alyson Cruise on a financial website, bearing the same photograph as the Country Facebook admin Alyson Cruise, a trans woman at St Catherine’s College (who didn’t respond when I contacted her).
If they’re the same person, then it’s bit rich of Cruise to judge errors in language, since her own grasp of syntax on Facebook is pretty rudimentary. But the urge to correct the grammar of the lower orders is very Oxonian. No other university is so intellectually snobbish. Even the Bullingdon Club is at times — look at the proportion of Firsts and future power brokers among its members. Country Living would hate the comparison, but they and the Bullers are both elitist, secretive and enjoy ridiculing people on the basis of linguistic clues. Among the Oxford social elite, letting slip a lower-middle-class word such as ‘lounge’ is what the hyper-feminists would call ‘problematic’. ‘I’d love to see a fights between CL and the Bullingdon,’ muses a student. ‘The feminists would scratch their eyes out before they’d thrown their first chair.’
Unlike the 235-year-old Bullingdon, however, Country Living is unlikely to become a venerable Oxford institution. A backlash is under way. Louisa Manning, an ex-member, has broken ranks to denounce its ‘patronizing, self-righteous tone’ — and revealed that as a mixed-race woman, she had been instructed by the group ‘to identify as white when talking to people of color’. She also accused the administrators of ‘Facebook-stalking members’ profiles’ to determine whether they were ‘legit feminists’.
She also accused the group of spreading a version of politically correct racism. People of mixed race — like herself — felt they were being ‘erased’ because they didn’t fit neatly into an ethnic category. She wrote: ‘Being half Latino, whenever I’ve become involved with threads discussing race, I’ve been accused of “passing privilege” and have been instructed to identify as white when talking to people of color.’
Imagine if allegations of racial bullying were made against a Tory drinking club. The Oxford University authorities would investigate immediately. But Country Living is left-wing, so it is left alone.
Fortunately the group is unstable and beginning to divide into factions. Ordinary undergraduates are finally summoning up the nerve to tease them. The chances are that Country Living — like thousands of cults throughout history — will tear itself apart in an orgy of name-calling, finger-pointing and accusations of heresy. But not before its fanatics have succeeded in spoiling university life for other students — and themselves.”

Alt Left: The Right Are Now the Free Love Sexual Liberationists, and the Left are the Sex-hating Puritanical Prudes

Pathetic!
It is truly pitiful that the only people protesting these sex-hating, sex-banning, Neo-Victorian, man-hating dyke prudes called feminists are the reactionaries. Isn’t that pitiful? Who’s standing up for the Sexual Revolution against the Left’s attempt to bring us back to the Comstock Era. The reactionaries! Who’s standing up for free love? The reactionaries! Who’s standing up for guilt-free flirting, dating, sex and love? The reactionaries!
Since when did reactionary scum ever become sexual liberationists? And what happened to the Left. I am straight out of the free love Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution was one of the great liberation movements of the great 1960’s. And now the Left, the very people who kicked off this revolution in the first place, have become extreme sex-hating Puritans who threaten to get men fired, get their careers destroyed, and arrest, try and imprison them for the crime of flirting with, dating, and having sex with females! Incredible!
The Right are now the great freewheeling sexual liberationists and the Left are the frigid, impotent, sex-hating Puritanical prudes! How sad is that?

How SJW's Are a Threat To Human Intelligence Itself

Thinking Mouse: “What about the exceptions?!?” is good for research, though. You want to know as much as possible.

Even in research, we don’t care much about that. I write for academic journals. In a lot of fields, we don’t care about exceptions. We just look for a statistical effect. Of course we have to discuss the exceptions statistically in our findings, but in a lot of fields, no one really cares about them.
The purpose of life is looking for patterns that help you to explain reality. The SJW What about the exceptions? nonsense is intended to completely stop humans for seeking or discussing any patterns in humans because all patterns in humans are necessarily generalizations, stereotypes, and various forms of bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia and all the rest of the folly .
On Quora, they often ask people with genius+ IQ’s (140+) how they think. Over and over you hear that they are always looking for patterns everywhere they go in life. If all patterns in human life are generalizations, stereotypes, and various forms of bigotry, and if What about the exceptions? nullifies all generalizations, we are talking about wiping out the very pillars of human thought.
All this dangerous silliness is coming out of postmodernism, a theory which denies even the possibility of truth or the ability of humans to discover it. That’s why in all Identity Politics like feminism, gay rights, trans rights, anti-racism, all the rest of the foolishness, you always get hand-waving away of the scientific facts they don’t like because the facts conflict with their precious theory.
All Identity Politics is based on the primacy of theory over fact, and as such, all IP is intellectually fraudulent. The fact that it is mandatory for all humans in the West to go along with a manifestly intellectually fraudulent and provably false set of theories on pain of job firing, career destruction, etc. is one of the most anti-scientific and anti-intellectual outrages of our modern era. I lay this whole travesty at the foot of the intellectual joke called the Cultural Left, a miasma of propaganda and lies masquerading as truth and science. 
The SJW’s are an actual menace to human intelligence itself.